' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision petitioners who are defendants in a suit for declaration have challenged the judgment and decree dated 6-2-2009 passed by learned trial court whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs- respondents was decreed and judgment and decree dated 1-10-2010 passed by learned first appellate court whereby appeals filed by the petitioners- defendants were dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration wherein they challenged the mutation of inheritance No, 957, attested on 10-11-1965, of their maternal grandfather whereby whole of the property left by deceased Mian Khan was transferred in the name of Muhammad Ali his son, the predecessor of the petitioners, showing him the sole legal heir excluding Mst. Maryam Bibi, who was daughter of Mian Khan and was the pre-deceased to Mian Khan who died in January, 1965 whereas Mst. Maryam Bibi daughter of deceased died in the year 1958. Written statement was filed, suit was contested. There is evasive denial in Para 2 of the written statement whereas in the said Para of the plaint right of inheritance has been narrated.
Learned trial.: court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence.
Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. After completion of the trial learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 6-2-2009 decreed the suit. Petitioners- defendants being aggrieved filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decrees dated 1-10-2010. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred C.M.No,3 of 2012 filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the Civil Revision in hand be adjourned sine-die on the ground that some of the judgment-debtors other than the present petitioners filed Civil Revision No, 3568 of 2010, which was dismissed in limine by this Court and against which CPLA No, 2175 of 2010 has been filed by the present petitioners which is still pending before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. At this stage learned counsel for the revision petitioners prays for sine-die adjournment of the case, which has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, learned counsel stated that he is ready to argue the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that when the respondents-plaintiffs slept over their right for a considerable time, the suit was time barred, therefore, both the courts below have not attended to this point and further that the property has been further alienated in favour of various persons, therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel argues that principle of laches is also in the way of the plaintiffs-respondents as the suit was barred by time and they are estopped to file the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred the C.M and prays that civil revision be dismissed on this score that the Civil Revision No, 3568 of 2010 already filed by some of the judgment debtors has been dismissed in limine by this Court, therefore, this Court again cannot scrutinize the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below when the same have been confirmed in the order passed by this Court. Further while relying upon "Moulvi Muhammad Azeem v. Alhaj Mehmood Khan Bangish and another" (2010 SCM R 817) argues that the petitioners failed to show any defect in the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below, therefore, revision is not competent. Further that in the matter of inheritance the legal heirs automatically become co-owners in the suit property at the time of death of propositus, therefore, the filing of the suit cannot be said to have been filed after the prescribed period of limitation. Relies on "Mst. Suban v. Allah Ditta and others" (2007 SCM R 635).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as judgments referred by learned counsel for the parties.
6. When this Court has dismissed the civil revision filed by some of the judgment debtors though they were not the present petitioners but the petitioner of earlier revision have been arrayed as respondents in the present petition and the present petitioners have challenged the order of dismissal of that revision petition before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPLA No, 2175 of 2010 which is allegedly subjudice before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in my view this.
Revision petition in the peculiar circumstances of the case is not maintainable. Even otherwise there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below against the petitioners and further that in the light of case-law relied by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any defect committed by the courts below, therefore, learned counsel has rightly relied on the case law reported as "Moulvi Muhammad Azeem v. Alhaj Mehmood Khan Bangish and another" (2010 SCM R 817) which is applicable to the facts of this case and further that the legal\ heirs of propositus become automatically co-owners in the property left by the propositus and for using the limitation as a defence against them it is incumbent upon the defendants to show complete ouster of the plaintiffs from the suit property. No such ouster has been shown, relationship has not been denied.
' There is evasive denial of para 2 of the plaint and the evasive denial under the law is presumed to be an admission. Limitation in this suit cannot be used as a bar against the respondents-plaintiffs.
Light can be taken from "Mst. Suban v. Allah Ditta and others" (2007 SCM R 635). In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this Court has been made out, therefore, this revision petition stands dismissed.